Reflections on the Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests
Dr. Aaron Milavec, Catherine of Siena Virtual College
Some people have gained the impression that sexual abuse of minors by priests is a very recent
phenomenon. Those who are in the know, however, realize that sexual improprieties have
been going on quietly for a long time and that, only in recent times, have they come into the
public limelight. The statistics for the United States are staggering:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) [official website] reports
having received allegations from 14,000 victims against 5,600 priests between 1950-
2008. The official numbers are found in the 2004 John Jay Report [text] commissioned
by the USCCB and the subsequent implementation report [text, PDF] from 2008.
Estimates [BishopAccountability.org report] of the total number of US children who
were abused since 1950 range from 25,000 to close to 300,000.®
My personal reflections on this worldwide ecclesiastic crisis are divided into two parts: (a)
Cultural factors shaping the current crisis and (b) Ecclesiastical factors aiding and inhibiting the
bishops' response.
Cultural Factors Shaping the Current Crisis
Cultural factors play a large role in accounting for why the pedophilia crisis has emerged into
the public limelight.
To begin with, one has to reflect on how tolerance for sexual abuse within families has
markedly decreased in our own lifetime. A man used to be able to beat his wife with impunity
and to terrorize and sexually abuse his children as well without any outside interference of any
kind. The victims were ashamed to tell even members of their wider family. They were
oftentimes persuaded that they brought these things upon themselves and somehow deserved
their mistreatment. Fear clouded their minds and they were cowered into silent submission.
A daughter who complained to her own mother after months of escalating sexual foundling by
their father was often accused of "making up stories" or of "giving themselves over to
exaggeration." Some daughters were even advised that sexual submission was "the small
price" that a woman had to learn to willingly pay in order to gain and retain the protection and
support of a man and that it was "not such a bad thing for your father to prepare you to submit
your body to your future husband/'
Wives and children, of course, could always run away but, without a powerful protector, such
women and children would be inevitably preyed upon by even more hard-hearted predators
who knew the art of how to enslave them sexually and to exploit them for personal gain. The
aberrations that take place today in war zones, in refugee camps, in harrowing slums, in secret
prisons, and even in the Astrodome of New Orleans following the hurricane Katrina are just the
reality check that demonstrates how sexual exploitation of the weak is a cultivated habit that
infects a small portion of every society, esp. when patriarchy and misogyny hold sway.
Why do children permit themselves to be sexually abused? The truth is that generally they are
not even aware that they are being "abused" and that this abuse is "sexual." This only comes
many, many years later.
Case One: Susan, a cute neighborhood girl of ten, came over to plant flowers with me. As we
plant together, she tells me, with a sense of pride, that she has "a very special relationship"
with her dad. I respond, "Oh, that's nice, tell me about it." "Oh, I wish I could, but I can't. My
dad made me to promise never to tell anyone. I can't even tell my sister or my mother." "Why
can't you tell me." "My dad said it would get him in trouble, and a policeman would put him in
jail."
As I heard these things, red flags went up. "Special relationship" could be the kind of talk her
father (a lawyer estranged from his wife) might use by way of sugar-coating his inappropriate
touches. The emphasis on secrecy and the threat of disclosure were also suspect. Overall,
however, Susan feels very special to be included in her father's night-time rituals!
Case Two: Albert Green vividly remembers the first time he saw the home of the Rev. Ed
Olszewski, the priest who cared for him [as an orphan] when he was 11. "The first day, I was so
excited. I went running through the church. Everything was so pretty -- it was like a mansion. It
had twelve bedrooms and six bathrooms. It was humongous," said Green [recalling these early
events for the jury]. Green remembers the mysterious chute that dropped dirty clothes right
down to the laundry room, the giant bowl filled with silver dollars and the cool stuff in the
priest's bedroom: a little fridge with soft drinks in it, a popcorn machine, the soft rug in front of
his bed.
He also remembers that Olszewski didn't wait long to establish that their relationship would be
sexual. Green said that [on their] first night, they went to Olszewski's bedroom and drank some
wine. Then Olszewski took out some Vaseline and "he was rubbing it on me, on my front and
my back. He put it up into my rectum. I felt something really weird. I just turned over and felt
something else go inside of it." While the priest had sex with him, Green said, he was looking
over at the bowl full of shiny coins, thinking "all this money. He's going to give it to me," Green
said.
Green said he also liked the power and stature that came with being the priest's surrogate son:
"I knew what he was doing. I just felt like he was my father, he was the president, whatever he
says, goes. I never really had nothing, now I'm rich and famous. ... I felt special," he said,
( www)
The parallels between Green and Susan are striking. Both children were hungry to be nurtured,
protected, and made to feel "very special." The sexual contact was a small price to pay for this.
In the 2004 play and 2009 movie, "Doubt," the mother of the only African-American student in
a parochial school is confronted with the principal's suspicion that the priest, Fr. Flynn, has
entered into a sexual relationship with her son. In response, the mother, Mrs. Muller, stands
her ground against the principal. She explains that her son needs a sympathetic father figure
and a protector in a hostile school environment wherein racial teasing runs high. She says to
the principal something like this: "It makes no difference to me whether Fr. Flynn is guilty or
innocent. What I see is that my son has grown in self-confidence, that he is no longer ridiculed
by the white boys, and that he is set on a course toward achieving his goals. All of these
changes have taken place after Fr. Flynn has taken him under his wing. If my son happens to be
in that way [homosexual], then it is a small price to have him initiated by a caring priest." Sr.
Aloysius interpreted this response as crass and uncaring. She secretly hoped to shock Mrs.
Muller into withdrawing her son from the school. Yet, to her credit, the mother engaged in a
moral reasoning that took into account the whole range of effects that Fr. Flynn's patronage
had upon her son.
Other cultural factors also come into play. As the tolerance for sexual abuse has been radically
declining, the tolerance for "sex tourism" has been massively expanding in various Asiatic
countries and the American military continues to offer combat troops R&R ["rest and
relaxation"] in the Philippine brothels surrounding American bases. In such a world where
utilitarian values hold sway, one should not be surprised that reputable scholars publish books
and Christian "experts" sponsoring websites that openly advocate the advantages of
pedophilia:
Pedophiles who decide to act out are usually someone who the child loves and respects. The
experience (before society dumps its guilt and other garbage) is usually positive. The sex is
mutual and pleasurable in many cases to both parties, especially when the relationship is a
good, loving one. . . . Allow children fredom [sic] of choice! Promote RELATIONSHIPS between
youngsters and adults!
What these sites fail to recognize is that "consent" on the part of children is often overwhelmed
by the "initiative" on the part of male adults who cleverly exploit their "innocence" and "trust"
and "longing for human contact." Furthermore, patriarchy offers men a sense of entitlement.
Their sexual satisfaction is morally legitimated even when it is achieved at the expense of the
women and children involved. The claim that "the sex is mutual and pleasurable" never takes
into account the imbalance of power that exists in pedophilia (as well as in sex tourism and
R&R). Furthermore, in the case of children, there is a glaring imbalance of sexual power due to
the as-yet-undeveloped sexuality of children. Thus, there must always be a degree of male
exploitation present even in those instances where the child finds the encounter satisfying.
Recall Green saying, "I never really had nothing, now I'm rich and famous." Young women
offering sex tourism and R&R might even be able to say much the same thing. When examined
more closely, this is all a seductive fiction brewed in the fragile imaginations of men feeding on
their sense of "male entitlement." Priests, truth to say, have no special immunity to "male
entitlement."
Ecclesiastical Factors Aiding and Inhibiting the Bishops" Response
Prior to 2002, the response of the U.S. Catholic bishops was overwhelmingly in favor of
silencing victims and preventing public scandal. After 2002, these same bishops turned things
around and drew up a "Charter" with the Catholic people to put into place protections at all
levels and, above all things, to stand by the children who had been abused.
In the early period, from Vatican II to 1980, most bishops listened to the complaints of parents
and guardians and then followed through by confronting accused priests in private. Some
boldly refused to allow that there was any substance to the rumors that had been brought
against them. Others confessed their misconduct and poured out tears of repentance that
sufficed to convince their bishops that they had turned from sin to grace. After a time of prayer
and reflection, these priests were generally assigned to new pastoral locations where they
could make a clean start.
When psychological testing was first introduced in the 1980s as the preferred way to weed out
unfit candidates applying to the seminary, stress was placed upon psychological assessments by
way of assuring bishops that those entering the seminary had a adult psychological profile and
were capable of undertaking a life of committed celibacy. During this period, bishops also
asked the advice of trusted psychologists respecting wayward priests addicted to drink or to sex
or to drugs. On the basis of the best advice of professional psychologists, they began to realize
that mere contrition and the firm resolve not to sin again was largely ineffective when it came
to addictive behaviors. They thus began to send troubled priests to isolated psychological
centers wherein they could recover their spiritual and psychological health. When deemed
"cured/' such priests could be reassigned to a parish in a new geographical center where they
could have a "fresh start" free of the lingering rumors and the human mess that they had
created in their former pastoral settings.
Meanwhile, in the 1980s, an avalanche of fresh accusations surfaced. No one knows how many
cases were reported since the bishops routinely followed the policy of protecting the
reputations of the perpetrators and of doing damage control within the community. Reported
cases of child sexual abuse across the United States reached epidemic proportions from 1980 to
1990, with a reported 322 percent increase from 1980 to 1990. Given the logic shared earlier,
one can suspect that the bishops received an epidemic rise in reported incidents of sexual
abuse by priests also during this period.
At this point, no bishop within the United States was handing over evidence to the local police
regarding the confirmed sexual improprieties of their priests. Their logic was that this was an
internal affair, and that their responsibility ended when a priest had taken up residence in an
addiction center and his case file, complete with the sworn testimony of witnesses pledged to
secrecy, was transferred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which was
under the direction of Cardinal Ratzinger from 1981 to 2005.
The old adage was that "Rome moves slowly" and, in the affair of wayward priests, this applied
in full rigor. The notion that a tribunal of complete strangers in the Vatican could competently
decide the juridical future of the accused on the basis of sworn testimony (wherein the accused
never had to face his accusers; and, in many instances, was never even permitted to know the
identity of his accusers and wherein no cross-examination of live witnesses was possible) may
seem ludicrous to us today, but bishops were subservient to whatever the Vatican decided and
were perhaps relieved that they could obediently hide behind the decision of a Vatican tribunal
when the hard judgments were finally passed down. But the greatest failure of the Vatican
system is that neither the accused nor the accusers are present at the deliberations. Even the
judges were sworn to secrecy and could never discuss the cases they decided with either the
victims or the perpetrators. Such a system is thoroughly unsatisfactory since neither the
victims nor the perpetrators have any way of knowing whether their case received a "fair
hearing." Moveover, there was no public scrutiny that would allow anyone to evaluate the
reliability of the proceedings or for experts to make recommendations for improving them.
In the patristic churches of the second to the fifth century, local bishops with a Roman province
met twice yearly for the purpose of devising a uniform pastoral plan for the faithful. At these
assemblies, any person of any rank could bring forward accusations against any of the
assembled bishops. Testimony under oath was received with the accused present and cross
examinations were permitted to get at the truth of the affair. Any bishop judged to have acted
improperly was disciplined immediately: Some were suspended from their office for a limited
time. Others were permanently defrocked. In severe cases, bishops were excommunicated
entirely and expected to become penitents living on bread and water, and kneeling at the doors
of the church every Sunday beseeching the faithful to pray for them as they entered to
celebrate the Eucharist. In this setting, no one ever imagined that disciplining misbehaving
bishops was an affair that had to be handled in Rome or that the office of bishop was somehow
unaccountable to the local church.
In parallel fashion, in every urban church, the bishop(s) met with his council of presbyters early
in the week and routinely heard cases of Christians who were vexed or injured by the conduct
of their brothers or sisters in Christ. Christians were asked not to bring their brothers or sisters
before the judgment of secular magistrates. After 313, Constantine even allowed that
Christians could settle their complaints in these effective church courts and that bishops could
wear the stole which, in this era, was the public mark of an official judge. This is why the stole
is worn by the priest in the confessional today.
In this era, bishops and presbyters usually resided in their local communities for the whole of
their lives. They were well known to everyone in the community. A bishop was chosen on the
basis of open deliberation and voting within the council of presbyters. Such appointments were
then brought before the entire community and the consent of the entire parish was required
before anyone took office. Any presbyter accused of misbehaving was judged by the council of
presbyters. Witnesses were sworn in and the accused was invited to speak in his own defense
and to call witnesses from within the community." Here, again, no one ever imagined that
disciplining misbehaving presbyters (priests) was an affair that had to be handled in Rome or
that the office of presbyter was somehow not accountable immediately and directly within the
local church.
This diversion into church history is offered here by way of indicating how dysfunctional the
Church of the 1980s had become. Some say that the sexual abuse crisis was precipitated by the
policy of secrecy and damage control perpetuated by bishops and clergy alike. From my
perspective, the problem goes much deeper. Centralization of the Church in Rome (which
began as the much needed Gregorian reform o f the 12 th century) left Catholics with an
antiquated system of justice that provided scant relief for either the accused or the abused.
Secrecy, moreover, fostered the suspicion that bishop protected their favorites. Bishops were
perceived as minimizing the crime, shielding the abusers, and distancing themselves from their
victims. Parents often just wanted to receive a fair hearing, an admission of guilt from the
perpetrator, and some guarantee that the perpetrator would never again be in a position to
create yet more victims. Prior to 2002, these things were in short supply. Secrecy was badly
used and abused and misunderstood during this period. Rev. Thomas Doyle, a frequent
consultant in both civil and ecclesiastical suits involving clerical sexual abuse, makes this point
as follows:
According to the 1922 and 1962 [Vatican] documents, accusers and witnesses are bound by the
secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the
process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See officially envisioned this process to be a
substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some
have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide
sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to
secular authorities. 111
Shortcomings of the Penetential System
Even the practice of sacramental confession left the victims out in the cold. A priest who
molested children could screw up his courage and confess his sins to another priest (maybe
even his bishop). As a result, the penitent's tears were blessed with the assurance that God
had forgiven all their terrible sins and that he could begin with a fresh slate. It never occurred
to most confessors to imagine that the "innocence" of a child had been stolen and, as in cases
of theft, restitution (according to the means of the person involved) was required before
absolution could be given.
The forgiveness in the confessional also deprives angry parents from ever hearing any
admission of guilt on the part of the perpetrator. The confessor and God had heard the
confession of guilt, but those who were hurt and angry were greeted with only a stony silence.
Knowing the history of the development of sacramental confession in the early medieval period
would have prompted pastors to practice a "tough love" in the form of a assigning a penance
that would have provided some remedy for the immense damage that had been done. Reciting
six Our Fathers is hardly a suitable penance for child abuse. More effective would be a full
confession of guilt before the child and his extended family. In some cases, an additional public
confession before the entire church community would be required along with putting in place
credible safeguards that would prevent the priest from having any private encounters with
young people ever again. In more grievous cases, the offending priest could be required to also
confess his crimes before a magistrate and to serve any civil or criminal penalties.
Unfortunately, however, the Catholic penitential system has been so privatized, sanitized, and
gutless that little or no remedy for the social effects of sin was forthcoming.
It was at this point that the mothers and some fathers of victims got very angry and took charge
of their right to protect their daughters and sons from priests who were wolves in sheep's
clothing. One such mother explained how her son had been abused as an altar boy and how
the priest responsible continued to have monthly sleepovers at the rectory. When she met
with the bishop and explained in great detail the confusion and fear of her son after these
serial; sexual encounters, the bishop suddenly stood up, put on his stole, and gave her
absolution. Then he explained that everything that she said was under the seal of confession
and that she had the sacred duty not to reveal to anyone what she had just confessed to him.
She was now doubly angry by the bishop's "pious trickery." She stormed out and immediately
found a lawyer to bring criminal charges against the priest for "improper sexual conduct with a
minor." Later this was expanded to charges against the bishop himself for "knowingly aiding
and abetting" the perpetrator's criminal conduct. The court sentenced the priest to three years
of imprisonment and the diocese was required to pay $100,000 of punitive damages to the
child.
Once frustrated parents caught on to the fact that bishops were reassigning offending priests to
new parishes and that most priests so assigned became repeat offenders, more and more
parents began to use the legal system to bring forward the remedy that the Vatican system of
justice and the confessional were unable to deliver. "Since 2007, in the US alone, the Church
has settled more than 500 cases [JURIST news archive] of abuse for over $900 million." This has
severely depleted the coffers of just about every diocese in the United States. Properties have
been sold. Loans have been taken out. ( www ) In some cases, entire dioceses have had to
declare bankruptcy.
It is to the credit of the US Bishops that, in 2002, they did a deep and soul-searching assessment
of their delinquency in handling sex-abuse cases. The wake-up call was undoubtedly due to
parents and survivors coming forward to tell their stories and to mount legal action against
those responsible. They did an about face by turning their full attention to the victims where it
should have been all along. Leading experts in all relevant fields were consulted. For the first
time, bishops say the necessity for pastoral action in favor of the victims as being the primary
and continued response in all case of child abuse.
The bishops' website provides the following summary of the Charter:
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People is a comprehensive set of
procedures established by the USCCB in June 2002 for addressing allegations of sexual abuse of
minors by Catholic clergy. The Charter also includes guidelines for reconciliation, healing,
accountability, and prevention of future acts of abuse.
The Charter directs action in all the following matters:
• Creating a safe environment for children and young people;
• Healing and reconciliation of victims and survivors;
• Making prompt and effective response to allegations;
• Cooperating with civil authorities;
• Disciplining offenders;
• Providing for means of accountability for the future to ensure the problem continues to
be effectively dealt with through a national Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection
and a National Review Board.
The bishops' website provides further guidance for anyone who suspects or knows that they
have been abused sexually by someone employed by the Catholic Church:
If you suffered abuse, it was not your fault. If you are a victim of sexual abuse by
deacon, or individual representing the Catholic Church, there are several things
you can do:
• Contact the appropriate law enforcement agency, which can help
determine options for making a criminal complaint.
• Contact a local child protection agency, a private attorney, a support
group, an abuse hotline, or a mental health professional.
• Contact a diocesan or eparchial victim assistance coordinator who is
available to help victims/survivors make a formal complaint of abuse to the diocese
or eparchy. The Victim Assistance Coordinator is also available to arrange a personal
meeting with the bishop or his representative and to obtain support for the needs of
the individual and families. IV
In 2004 Annual Report which details the degree of implementation undertaken by each diocese
was published with this forward by Bishop William S. Skylstad, President, United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The last three years have been a humbling experience for the Church. We bishops have
had to face the sinful betrayal of trust by those who should have been most
trustworthy. We have had to deal with the continuing consequences of these betrayals.
We have pledged to hold ourselves accountable, as far as is humanly possible, to see to
it that this betrayal never happens again.
The annual report is described in these terms:
This second annual Report on the Implementation of the "Charter for the Protection of
Children and Young People" is the result of the commitments made by the Catholic
bishops of the United States when we adopted the Charter in June 2002. One of these
commitments was to be publicly accountable for fulfilling the actions outlined in the
Charter to help heal those wounded as young people by sexual abuse by clergy and to
prevent such abuse in the future.
This public accountability was insured by hiring independent auditors who produced the report.
The closing words aptly capture the hope for the future:
My brother bishops and I pray that what we have done in the last three years will bring about a
restoration of trust. In particular, I hope that all who have suffered abuse by clergy or any
representative of the Church will now be willing to share what happened to them so that both
they and we may be healed. No one who has not experienced such a trauma can fully
appreciate its shattering effects. Yet through knowledge of what others have suffered, we can
have greater sensitivity to their pain and be better able to help, (www)
Needless to say, the creation and implementation of the Charter in 2002 did not mean that all
bishops were attuned to shedding their former dysfunctional ways. Some bishops continue to
badmouth Catholics who bring lawsuits against them. Still others drag their feet and try to
invent ways to circumvent court orders to turn over documentation relative to particular cases.
Overall, however, most bishops turned around their entire approach to the issue.
Sometimes deep pain and failure are a stimulus to reflective, to conversion, and to renewed
forms of action. Sad to say, most dysfunctional aspects of the Vatican's system of tribunals are
unexamined and unchanged. Bishops continue to be chosen making use of secret consultations
that have the effect of appointing candidates that favor Vatican policies; accountability of
bishops to their clergy and to locally generated pastoral plans remains weak. Sacramental
confession of sins continues to be so privatized, sanitized, and gutless that little or no remedy
for the social effects of sin is forthcoming. Yet, this is the church we love—both flawed and
faithful, good and evil, misguided and inspired.
Two Closing Footnotes
My reflections must come to a close. Before doing so, however, I want to make a make two
brief reflections: one relative to gay seminarians, that other relative to humility in the papal
office.
Members of the hierarchy have championed a whole assortment of "false leads" when it comes
to analyzing and healing the current crisis. Some claim that the pedophilia is "the work of the
devil." Others claim that it all goes back to the "reluctant celibacy that was imposed" on those
who had authentic priestly vocations. Still others say that the problem resides with "the gay
culture" that has thrived within our seminaries and within our rectories. The later analysis
caught on, sad to say, and gained a sizeable hearing within the hierarchy. Gay Catholic bishops,
meanwhile were cowered into silence by a whole assortment of misguided myths and moral
teachings that go back centuries. There is neither the time nor the space to sort this out here. I
can only offer a small corrective-a public letter that the Episcopal Bishop Gene Robertson
offered to Pope Benedict:
I believe it is misguided and wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal. As a
gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the
thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the
media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame
for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that
every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be
child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more
drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little
girls.
Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple. Meaningful
consent is impossible, by definition, for the underaged. You will not rid your church of
sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood.
Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic
history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people
they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation/
In my above reflections, I have refrained from offering any reflections on the role of the last
two popes regarding the issue of sexual abuse of children by priests. This issue is very long and
complex and would need thirty pages or an entire book to do it justice. I can only say, as a
footnote, that the credibility of the Catholic Church does not rest upon maintaining that the
current pope has a theological acumen, a pastoral sensitivity, and a judgment of character that
is second to none. Rather, the credibility of the Bishop of Rome rests upon his ability to rely
upon those who exceed him in every one of these traits and to humbly acknowledge his own
bad judgment relative to pastoral cases he poorly handled in the past. It scares me to hear so
many members of the hierarchy coming forward and excusing Benedict XVI from all wrong
doing in every circumstance going all the way back to the Hitler years. Benedict XVI can
demonstrate for the bishops of the world how to meet and hear the pain of the suffering and
angry victims of abuse. He can demonstrate how to align himself with the victims and to
threaten perpetrators with a policy of "zero tolerance." Yet, he cannot demonstrate to the
bishops of the world how they can govern with confidence while exhibiting a transparency
relative to their own shortcomings and their learning from their own failings. Yet, in my mind,
this is where the current policy of the U.S. bishops is potentially doomed to a short-term
success followed by a long-term failure.
What stays in my mind is the instance where John Paul II was being interviewed relative to the
period when he lived and worked in Krakow during the Nazi occupation. The myth-makers had
already told and retold stories of how, at a moment's notice, he championed a Jewish boy by
talking about "his catechism class" when the boy was being threatened with arrest as a Jew.
When asked about this and similar feats of daring, John Paul II grew strangely silent. Finally, he
said, with deep sadness in his eyes, "I did nothing!" At that moment, I understood his
relentless campaign to meet with Jews, to hear their pain, to pray in their synagogues, to call
them "our elder brothers." His very ability to take on this tireless role within the Church which
inspired bishops everywhere was due, in some divinely inscrutably way, to his earlier weakness
in doing "nothing." From that day forward, John Paul II stood considerably taller in my
estimation. I was proud to have a leader of his stature.
I David Manes, ''Vatican releases Church response procedure for sex abuse cases/' Jurist: Legal News and
Research, 12 April 2010, http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/vatican-releases-church-response.php
II These familiar forms of juridical trials were slowly taken over by secular tribunals and thus, even in entirely
secular courts today, jurors are chosen from within the community, witnesses swear an oath upon the bible to tell
the truth, and the accused (or those lawyers acting in his/her name) are permitted to cross-examine witnesses.
Above all things, courtroom procedures are generally open to public scrutiny.
ni Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., "THE 1922 & 1962 INSTRUCTIONS--CR//WE/V SOLICITATIONIS PROMULGATED BY THE
VATICAN/' Documents ^Controversy, 04 March 2010, http://www.richardsipe.com/Docs_and_Controversy/
2010-03-04-solicitation.html
lv U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, "Victim Assistance/' http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/victim_assistance.shtml
v Bishop V. Gene Robinson, "Amid abuse scandal, advice from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to Pope
Benedict," The Washington Post, 02 May 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001102.html
|
